Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Congregational churches

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The prevalent opinion, as I am reading it, is that these pages should not continue as they are presently written. Discussions should be initiated on the respective talkpages as to repurposing or spliting them from their current forms. J04n(talk page) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Congregational churches[edit]

List of Congregational churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
List of Anglican churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article can never be what the title promises, because we are never going to accumulate a comprehensive list of all Congregationalist churches, even by state. It's really the agglomeration of US NRHP-listed church buildings along with British buildings similarly listed under their system. Categorization deals with this better; only think of how big List of Roman Catholic churches would be. The creator justified this as "useful" but that suggests that he can have this userfied if he really wants it for his own use. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've added List of Anglican churches because this is even worse, as bad as the RC list for all practical purposes. There are thousands of Episcopal parishes in the US, South America, and Europe; The Church of England only knows how many there are in its domain, and Africa is likewise well-populated with churches. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining an accurate list of such parishes; parishes close constantly, and in Africa at least new parishes open constantly. We cannot maintain a worldwide directory of parishes, and at least of the US parishes probably no more than a quarter of them could support an article (due to NRHP listing of their buildings). Again, of the creator would like a copy in his userspace for his own purposes, that would be fine. But this article has no hope of recording what is promised, and if people are looking for directories of Anglican parishes, they should consult the various dioceses, not us. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Note that Lists of Catholic churches does exist and has a quite different form. Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was originally created as the quite impossible List of Catholic churches as well, but after multiple attempts I finally succeeded in getting that corrected to the current "Lists" instead, which is a different approach. Only the US subpage of that lists page is still a Doncram page, and seems overly ambitious (and also taken mainly from the NRHP point of view). Fram (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram, yes, that was utterly weird of you previously to insist that List of Catholic churches was an invalid topic, and to delete it, and then yourself to create Lists of Catholic churches, rather than moving List of Catholic churches to that name and preserving the edit history. I don't care whether the top level list is named "Lists of ...." or "List of ...", but renaming is to be done by a move (perhaps best after a proper wp:RM Requested move discussion). I don't tremendously care about credit for having created the needed master list article in Wikipedia, but I did contribute something then by noting the need and stepping in to create the master list. It was weird that you deleted the article created and inserted yourself into the role of having credit for that. I thought about asking you to restore the edit history. Actually, here, let me do that: could you please restore the original edit history for the List of Catholic churches list article (i.e. where I created and developed it somewhat) before your edits revising it to have a different form. I never would have disputed that it needed to be split, but deleting the toplevel list was not right, it put you in the role of supplanting the original author and edit history. --doncram 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doncram, perhaps next time check your facts instead of making incorrect accusations: List of Catholic churches in the United States is the current title where it was moved to, history and all, it wasn't deleted; you edited that page afterwards, so you should have been aware of this. The "lists of" page is totally new, and contains no content you created, so there was hardly any need to have your name in there. You did not create a master list, you created a US list (of sorts) and presented it as a master list, which was rather misleading. Moving the page you created to the "lists of" title would have been ridiculous, as that didn't match the contents of that page at all. I see no reason to change anything here. Fram (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No incorrect accusation made. You did delete the main article, and you did usurp another editor's work in doing so. Again, I don't care terribly to have the fame forever of having identified the need for the main list, but it is utterly weird that you have taken action to remove its history, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright/crediting system for contributions. I do recall that I noticed you moved my work to the United States name. It is a silly technicality to hang your hat on, if you want to say you didn't delete the main article because you deleted it by moving it with nothing to be left behind. Again it would have been fine to call for a split at the article's talk page, or even to just go ahead and implement one, as obviously separate U.S. and British articles would be needed. Please don't make incorrect assertions of incorrect assertions. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Obviously valid Wikipedia topics. See wp:CLT for explanation of how categories, lists, and navigation templates are complementary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches for a recent AFD on another list of churches, which closed Keep. No policy-based argument suggests deletion would be valid. Of course there exist significant Congregational and Anglican churches in the world, and they can be listed, just as Methodist and Presbyterian and other churches can be listed. The NRHP-listed ones in the United States are obviously individidually notable, but there are many other U.S. and non-U.S. churches to be covered; renaming to include NRHP in the title would unnecessarily narrow the topic (and beg the creation of the more general list again immediately). --doncram 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of the end of 2011, there were 6,736 parishes in the Episcopal Church [1]. I don't intend to list every single one here, and neither do you. Probably less than a quarter of them will ever have article because most parish buildings were built in the 1950s and '60s, and a lot of the older ones have been modified too much to allow for NRHP listing. Add England to this, and the scope of the problem shoots off the scale. The folks at 815 barely keep track of all parishes, and that mostly because the statistical office is obsessive. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia-notable one can eventually be listed. I fully intend to expand the list of U.S. ones to include every one documented to be notable by their being NRHP-listed (but have been delayed by confrontations now in arbitration). Likely eventual length of list is not a reason to delete it. The list will be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other sublists, as other church list-articles were split, and the top-level list will still be needed. --doncram 12:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my observation here: this looks more like a worklist for you than anything practical. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As applied to England, there is already a list of CofE cathedrals here as part of a more general list. The current list of Anglican churches in England on the list under discussion only mentions cathedrals and is incomplete. The correct list breaks up the dependencies into two provinces, dependent on either Canterbury or York. I agree with Fram's idea of a structured "hierarchy" or "tree" of lists. That is what happens with Lists of cathedrals in the United Kingdom. In the UK there are too many old churches and chapels to form a list: categories are a much better idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, categories and lists are complementary: see wp:CLT for explanation. For one thing, the list can include redlinks of churches known to be notable (e.g. by their being NRHP-listed).
As was already done for various other denominations' list-articles, this list will obviously be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other geographic area sublists. The top-level lists, here "List of Congregational churches", are still needed. There's no reason suggested in any of the above discussion that is supportive of eliminating the top-level list. --doncram 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about Anglican churches here, i.e. Church of England. The trouble is that in England there are a huge number of Anglican churches or chapels that are listed. If the list was restricted to Anglican churches in the United States listed on the NRHP that would seem reasonable. But it would seem reasonable to exclude England. The category and sub-categories are already complicated enough, e.g. Category:Church of England churches, which is organized partially by county and partially by period. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. congregational Anglican (corrected) churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. This seems not to be AFD-relevant. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said in the post above (two weeks ago) that I was talking about List of Anglican churches. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, sorry. I am copying your comments instead to Talk:List of Anglican churches#U.K. section. Do let's please continue there, instead of here. --doncram 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were specific to this deletion discussion and the general scope of lists. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being the subject of extensive documentation and scholarship such as The First Congregational Churches. The claims that categories are a superior way of managing such information are both false and contrary to the guideline WP:CLN which states explicitly that, "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Whether and how large lists are split and organised as a hierarchy is a matter of ordinary editing so that the edit history is preserved. Deletion is quite inappropriate and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is over the assumption that accurate lists, of manageable size, which people intend to maintain, can and will be created. I think all four of these points are in question. As far as the Anglican case is concerned, we can only maintain accurate lists by copying the diocesan lists and monitoring the latter to catch all the changes that occur, not to mention scraping up data elsewhere about parishes that are now closed. Whether such lists can be obtained for all dioceses is quite dubious. And the Anglicans are one of the better cases because ECUSA at least is compulsive about good records-keeping. I do not think we can or will maintain an accurate directory of Anglican parishes worldwide, and that's what we're promising to do here. And I don't think that appeals to eventualism are meaningful, because I don't think that eventually a comprehensive and accurate list will be completed. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-conformist churches are, by definition, fractious rather than uniform. An exhaustive and perfect directory of the sort you envisage is therefore impossible. This is unimportant because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory and our disclaimers make it clear that we do not pretend to perfection or 100% reliability. This is why we are able to have lists of other items for which there is a long tail of uncertain size such as list of numbers, list of rivers, list of minor planets, &c. We implicitly concentrate upon the more notable examples and don't worry much about lesser ones. Warden (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one, repurpose the other. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, this is an indiscriminate list, in that it is not based on a clear religious categorization of local churches, but is largely a list of historic church buildings with "congregational" in the names listed in historic registers.  ::Congregationalism is not a well-defined religious group. Congregationalism has taken diverse forms theologically, with the result that not all churches that define themselves as "congregational" are affiliated with the same religious tradition (or even similar traditions). For example, several decades ago in the United States, the majority of Congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ, so they are no longer considered to be Congregational churches. While the UCC is a very liberal mainstream Protestant denomination, some conservative churches in the U.S. still call themselves "congregational". The article Congregational churches lists two other denominational groups (besides the UCC) active in the U.S.: "the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches; and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, an evangelical group". According to that same article, most Congregational churches in Canada affiliated with the United Church of Canada in the 1920s, but some churches rejected that denomination as too liberal and split off to become Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, described as "an evangelical, Protestant, Christian denomination". Because of this diversity, the population of "Congregational churches" potentially included in this list lacks the denominational unity expected of a list of (for example) Roman Catholic churches.
Furthermore, it appears that the scope of the list, as it currently exists, is largely defined as churches that include "congregational" in their names, which is not a particularly meaningful definition. I stated on the article talk page that it wasn't obvious to me what the scope of this list was supposed to be and asked "Am I correct in inferring that it includes any church that once used or currently uses 'congregational' in its name, regardless of theology, but does not include other churches that belong to Congregationalist denominations, but do not have the word 'congregational' in the article name?" The list creator's reply indicated to me that he didn't know much about Congregationalism ("Since the organized Congregational church merged into the United Church of Christ, there may be no current Congregational churches--I am not sure--or there may continue to exist some current Congregational churches somewhere"). He also said "The scope of the list as intended by me is to list all notable current and former Congregational churches" and acknowledged that was started as a list of churches with "congregational" in their names ("Obviously, in the U.S., churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places and having 'Congregational' in their name are likely to be Congregational churches, and I have been proceeding to list those first. It may turn out that a few of these were not in fact Congregational and a correction will have to be made. This is no big deal to make small corrections, it is part of the list-building and categorizing process.").
Human knowledge is not enhanced by the publication of a list of churches of diverse denominations that have "Congregational" in their names, particularly when the list may include churches of diverse religious affiliations and does not include other churches that were at one time Congregational but do not have that word in their names. Delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose List of Anglican churches as several articles. In principle, the scope of this article ought to be better defined than for the Congregational list, but the attempt to list all Anglican churches in the world on one page -- and the inclusion of many list entries for which the list provides no solid information (such as the 34 entries for churches named "Christ Episcopal Church") -- has created a meaningless hodgepodge. Some of the country-specific lists may be worth retaining, so I'm suggesting that the page be converted into multiple pages, each one clearly defined by geography and specific "Anglican" affiliation. I mention affiliation because the various split-off groups of continuing Anglicanism are still "Anglican" but are distinctly separate from mainstream Anglicanism. I suggest that the new individual lists be built in user space until they have meaningful content. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Both of these denominational groups are associated with characteristic (and contrasting) approaches to the design and decoration of church buildings. (See, for example, this leaflet.) Their denomination-specific approaches to ecclesiastical architecture are potentially interesting and important topics for encyclopedia articles (and do not appear to be covered in existing articles such as Church architecture and Sacred architecture). Articles about denominational architectural style could and should discuss illustrative examples of individual churches, and might include embedded lists of churches. Indiscriminate lists of individual churches are not, however, a meaningful contribution to the topic of ecclesiastical architecture. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does that mean, "repurpose"? This is an AFD discussion. There is no argument here for deletion of the topic, which is obviously valid. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Mjroots notes, there are some impressive lists of UK lists of places of worship in wikipedia. A similar approach might be interesting for some parts of the United States, but there also could be merit in "by denomination" articles or lists. I think that the religious diversity of the United States creates some denomination-specific patterns that also form potential article topics. I just don't see that these lists have that kind of merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These comments have nothing to do with the topic of the AFD, whether the world-wide main list is a valid topic. Obviously the world-level list needs to exist. Splits by geography obviously also will be needed, but discussion should be at the Talk page of the article, and such comments are not AFD-relevant. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. Congregational/United Reformed churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. The 7 U.K. ones currently listed in the article are all those in a category of U.K. congregational churches. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears to me that there are similar issues for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. In all three of these countries, Congregationalism has been an important religious tradition historically (tracing to the English Puritans), but the majority of what were once Congregational churches have joined with other denominations to form a new "United" denomination that is not strictly Congregational. Specifically, these are the United Reformed Church in the UK, the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ in the US. In all of these countries, some Congregational congregations did not join the "United" denomination and are now affiliated with the Congregational Federation (in the UK), Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (in the US), or Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (in the US). Also, some new churches have joined these last four denominations (which I have collected called "Congregational Christian", a term that may be inaccurate) since the United churches were created. In the US, and apparently (based on this list) also in the UK, many former Congregational churches have retained the word "Congregational" in their names after joining the new "United" denomination. A problem with this list is that it lumps all of these different churches together in a single category, ignoring the fact that most of the individual churches are no longer Congregational. This is wrong -- or, at best, misleading. (The list also is very incomplete, in that it omits many current or former Congregational churches that have articles, but that's not the subject of this comment.) There might be merit in creating lists of churches by denominational affiliation, but such lists should be carefully researched and documented to avoid offending the sensibilities of living people who belong to these churches by misrepresenting their religious affiliation. There might also be merit in listing church buildings that were built as Congregational churches (regardless of the current use of the building), for reasons that I outlined above, but such a list should not be misrepresented as a list of churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete Again, it is obvious that there have been a number of Congregational churches notable for being Congregational and for their building's architecture or for characteristics of their congregations or their ministers or whatever. These can and should be listed. The list-topic is valid. So what if there should also be a list of United Reform ones, etc. Yes it is not yet a comprehensive list. None of these are reasons to delete the topic, which is obviously valid. This is tiresome. --doncram 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Such a woefully incomplete list, as either of these is, is unuseful to people who come here for reference purposes, and if filled out to be comprehensive, would be unuseful because of its size both to people who come here for reference purposes and to people who want to list everything. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, what deletion reason do you suggest? You acknowledge that the topic is useful, but the implementation of the list is incomplete... Okay, so we accept the list-topic. The current version is incomplete, so we should expand the list, yes. We have to start somewhere. And we are doing so, for the U.S. section, by a starter list of the NRHP-listed ones, which are all surely Wikipedia-notable. --doncram 22:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Congregational_churches&oldid=1080633636"